Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Occidente
2016-06
Students´ opinions about the use of L1 in an
intermediate level course
Arenas-Iglesias, Laura M.
Arenas-Iglesias, Laura M. (2016). Students´ opinions about the use of L1 in an intermediate level course. Master Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. University of St Mark and St John.
Enlace directo al documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11117/3399
Este documento obtenido del Repositorio Institucional del Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Occidente se pone a disposición general bajo los términos y condiciones de la siguiente licencia:
http://quijote.biblio.iteso.mx/licencias/CC-BY-NC-2.5-MX.pdf
(El documento empieza en la siguiente página) Repositorio Institucional del ITESO rei.iteso.mx
Departamento de Lenguas DEL - Tesis Masters in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
UNIVERSITY OF ST MARK & ST JOHN
CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE TEACHER
EDUCATION
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAMMES
STUDENTS’
OPINIONS
ABOUT
THE
USE
OF
L1
IN
AN
INTERMEDIATE
LEVEL
COURSE
DISSERTATION SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
MASTER OF ARTS IN
TEACHING ENGLISH TO SPEAKERS OF OTHER LANGUAGES
Submitted by: Laura Maribel Arenas Iglesias Tutor: Michael Hall
Guadalajara, Jalisco January 2016
Students’ opinions about the use of L1 in an intermediate level
course
To University of St Mark and St John as a dissertation for the degree of Master of Arts by advanced study in Education (special field: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages), January 2016.
I certify that all the material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified and that no material is included for which a degree has been previously been conferred upon me.
Laura Maribel Arenas Iglesias January 2016
ABSTRACT
The use of the mother tongue in the language classroom has created controversy for years and its role in the different teaching methods that have been developed has also been clearly defined. Experts in the language-teaching field have conducted studies whose results have approved its use whereas others have disapproved it. Two reasons against its use are that learners do not have sufficient exposure to the target language and that they do not receive the necessary amount of input resulting in poor language proficiency. On the other hand, some researchers claim that the judicious use of students’ L1 produces benefits such as stress relief. However, despite the disadvantages of the use of students’ mother tongue in the language class and in the personal need to do what is best for students in my teaching context is how this research project began. This project was conducted at a private university in Mexico, where I am currently working, and 38 students were used as subjects. The participants, whose L1 is Spanish, belong to two pre-intermediate level groups and answered an online questionnaire in class. Also, two different teachers participated: a Spanish native speaker (myself) and an English Native speaker who speaks Spanish but does not talk to her students in their mother tongue. Their responses were analysed through a mixed-method (Dörnyei, 2007; Borg, 2009, in Hall and Cook, 2013) that combined qualitative and quantitative approaches. Based on the results, I tried to find the answers to the following research questions: Under what circumstances do students consider the use of their mother tongue a benefit for their learning process? Do affective factors influence the learning process? Can the use of students’ mother tongue help diminish anxiety?
In general, the results showed positive opinions on the use of L1 in the language classroom by both students and teachers but only under certain circumstances. The use of L1 does not seem to hinder their learning process, but having to speak only English does make them experience negative feelings. The fact that both students and the
teacher can interact in the same language seems to lower students’ anxiety levels and perform more easily.
Page
Chapter 1 ……… 8
1. Introduction ………...………. 8
1.1 Background of the research ………..….. 1.2 Purpose and value of study ………...….. 1.3 Research Questions ………. 11 11 12 Chapter 2 ………. 13 2. Literature Review ……… 13
2.1 Exploration of the role of L1 within some ELT methods and approaches …………..…..……… 2.2 Previous research on the use of L1 ………….……… 2.3 Aspects that can hinder or promote the learning process …... 2.3.1 Anxiety ……….. 2.3.2 Grammatical differences dealt with contrastive analysis.. 2.3.3 Untrained teachers …………..………...……… 2.4 Proposals / suggestions to increase L2 ……….………...
13 16 20 20 24 25 26 Chapter 3 ………. 29 3. Research and Methodology ………... 29
3.2 Participants ……...…..………. 3.3 Research questions ….………..………… 3.4 Reasons for questionnaire ………..……… 3.4.1 Validation of questionnaire …………..……….. 3.5 Data gathering and analysis rationale ………..……….…. 3.6 Student questionnaire ………..…... 3.7 Data Analysis ………..……….…… 31 31 32 33 34 34 37 Chapter 4 ………. 38 4. Findings ………. 38
4.1 Under what circumstances do students consider the use of their mother tongue a benefit for their learning process? ………. 4.2 Do affective factors influence the learning process? ……….... 4.3 Can the use of students’ mother tongue help diminish anxiety? …... 38 42 45 Chapter 5 ……..……… 48 5. Conclusions ……….. 48
5.1 Limitations and further research ………..……….. 52
Table 1 ………..……….. Table 2 ………..……….. Figure 1 ………..………. 53 54 30 7. Bibliography ……… 56 8. List of concepts ………...…… 61 9. Appendices ………...………... 62
Appendix 1 Questionnaire in English ………..……….. Appendix 2 Questionnaire in Spanish ……..……… Appendix 3 ..………... Appendix 4 ..………... 62 65 70 71
Appendix 5 ..………... Appendix 6 ..………... Appendix 7 ..………... Appendix 8 ..………... Appendix 9 ..………... Appendix 10 ………... Appendix 11 ..………... Appendix 12 ..………... 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79
CHAPTER 1
1. INTRODUCTION
This research project aims to analyse students’ opinions regarding the use of L1 in their English class in order to find out if they perceive its use is beneficial to them, how they feel about using it along with English and if its use makes them feel more relaxed. This chapter contains the introduction to the study, the background of the research, the purpose of the study and the research questions.
Scholars in ELT (English Language Teaching) have discussed the use of the mother tongue in the language classroom for years and its role in the different teaching methods that have been developed. They have also conducted studies to find the midpoint between students’ needs and successful language proficiency. In order to contribute this academic discussion, I decided to work on this research project, which took place in a city of Mexico. Therefore, it is necessary to analyse this educational context since it could provide some insights as to why the use of L1 may have become a common practice in their foreign learning experience.
Learning English as a foreign language in Mexico has become a part of every student’s curricula since their early school training (Reyes, Murrieta, Hernández, 2011). Mexico’s success or failure may be strongly connected to students’ language performance which may also be connected to the qualifications of English teachers in the school system. Unfortunately, the results of a study conducted in late 2014, showed that the teaching of English in Mexico has been a failure. In spite of the fact that pupils in Mexico receive approximately six years of compulsory English instruction (perhaps three hours a week during the equivalent to middle school and high school), their proficiency at university level is still weak.
According to O’Donoghue (2015), English was first introduced into the secondary school curriculum in 1926. However, teaching English had not been considered an important factor to become internationally competitive until Mexicans realized that being proficient in English could be the key to economic growth and culture exchange. Also, according to O’Donoghue (2015, in Moreno, 2015) 52% of the teachers teaching English in Mexico do not have sufficient knowledge to teach the subject, 14.7% do not know the language at all and 37.3% do not even have the necessary training to teach students from middle school. Based on the results of a test they applied, they realized that 97% of the teenagers who passed their English class did not reach the level expected by the SEP (Ministry of Education) to validate middle school level.
It is presumable that students who fail English classes reflect the lack of proper training and the lack of knowledge of the target language (English) from their current and previous teachers. Some of these students advance through levels carrying grammatical, fluency and pronunciation problems along with them so it is no surprise that they do not attempt to speak English and, therefore, use their mother tongue (L1) instead. At present, in several universities in Mexico students cannot graduate unless they have obtained a certain level of proficiency or score in English as a result of having successfully completed a series of courses and “passed” international standardized tests such as the paper-based TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) (Guerra, 2008). Usually, the students with a low level of English proficiency are the ones who avoid speaking in the target language (L2) and prefer to use their L1 even if they are encouraged not to. Not only should we consider the lack of teacher training one of the main reasons for students’ low English proficiency, but also the affective factors that might have been involved in their previous language learning experiences and the differences that exist between their mother tongue and the target language.
On the one hand, learning the target language not only involves learning the subject, but also decoding the words used to convey the message. On the other hand, when this decoding process takes place, some students may experience a type of anxiety called Foreign Language Anxiety (FLA). Horwitz et al (1986:128, in Tran et al, 2012:2) define FLA as “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings and behaviours related to classroom language learning process.” This particular type of anxiety is an important factor teachers must consider when the use of L1 is either allowed or discouraged in the classroom. Teachers interact with human beings who cannot separate their feelings while learning. For example, Horwitz (2001:122, in Tran, Moni and Baldauf, 2012:2) expresses concern about paying attention to the frustration and discomfort that many students suffer when learning a foreign language. These negative feelings may be, therefore, factors that determine teachers’ decision to either promote or extinct at different degrees the use of the students’ mother tongue in class. Contrary to the negative feeling of anxiety, Dörnyei (1998) defines motivation as the key to success and the effort students will make in their learning process. The desire or need students have to learn the target language can be the fuel that students will use to accomplish their learning goals.
However, some aspects of the target language (in this case English) such as grammar, some sounds and pronunciation do not exist or are different from Spanish which is the students’ mother tongue (Levenson, 1993). In this case, in order to deal with these difficulties, sometimes students and teachers use the students’ mother tongue (Atkinson, 1987 in Vaezi and Mizraei, 2007). Therefore, grammar explanations, synonyms, antonyms, contrasts and comparisons seem to be useful tools that both students and the teacher can benefit from. Eventually, their use may be justified when it comes to reducing FLA to a minimum and maximizing motivation.
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH
The present research project is the result of a personal need to know what is best for students in my teaching context and an objective means to answer the question if the use of students’ mother tongue is beneficial in the language classroom. The study was conducted at a private university in Mexico, where I am currently teaching, which has a language requirement for graduation of a score of 550 on the paper based TOEFL. The participants were 38 students at pre-intermediate level studying EFL (English as a Foreign Language), their ages ranged from 17 to 22 and they all speak Spanish as their mother tongue. It is important to mention that there are two types of students within the same population: the ones that have had some more exposure to English because of their higher socioeconomic level, the opportunity to have had one-on-one lessons, bilingual education and traveling abroad; and the ones that attended public schools and have not been exposed to English as much because of their socioeconomic status. All the participants were asked to voluntarily answer an online questionnaire in class. They were informed that all the information provided was going to be treated anonymously. Then, the data collected was analysed through quantitative and qualitative methods in order to generate the results.
1.2 PURPOSE AND VALUE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is threefold. Firstly, to find out what students think about the use of L1 in the classroom; secondly, to learn if they consider its use a detriment or an aid in their language learning process and; finally, to provide students with ideas to increase the use of the L2 in their classes.
1. 3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The three research questions this study aims to answer are based on both my personal experience as a language student and my professional experience as an English teacher. As an English teacher, in none of the schools I have worked so far, they have expressed to have an English only policy. However, they have made it clear that students need to be exposed to the target language as much as possible. Likewise, as an English student I experienced constant discouragement to either not use Spanish at all in class or to minimize its use. Now, as an English teacher I asked myself whether allowing my students to use their L1 was beneficial or detrimental in their learning process since I was not sure I was doing the right thing. It was then that I decided to write this dissertation to try to find a balance between what my students think about the use of L1 in their English classes and what I believe is best for them. These are the questions I would like to research on: Under what circumstances do students consider the use of their mother tongue a benefit for their learning process? Do affective factors influence the learning process? Can the use of students’ mother tongue help diminish anxiety?
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The objective of this chapter is to present relevant academic works that have been published on the use of L1 in the language classroom and that may provide possible answers to my research questions. Firstly, I will analyse some teaching methods and approaches that have rejected and allowed the use of L1 in the language classroom. Secondly, I will analyse the research that has been conducted on the use and the rejection of the mother tongue in the language classroom. Thirdly, I will discuss some aspects of the target language such as grammatical differences, anxiety, and untrained teachers that may make the language learning process difficult. Finally, I will include proposals and suggestions made by authors who are in favour of increasing L2 activities instead of rejecting the use of the native language.
2.1 Exploration of the role of L1 within some ELT methods and approaches
We will now analyse the role of L1 and discuss the importance of students’ feelings and how errors are treated (Table 2) highlighting some ELT methods and approaches (Table 1). These are: The Grammar Translation Method, The Reading Approach, Communicative Language Teaching, Community Language Learning, Total Physical Response (TPR), Suggestopedia, The Direct Method, The Silent Way, The Audiolingual Method, and The Natural Approach. I selected these ones in order to present a balance of contexts where the use of the mother tongue is favoured and contexts where its use is discouraged.
originated in Germany in the early years of the nineteenth century (Richards and Rodgers, 1986) and promoted the use of L1 as the means of instruction leaving very little or no room to practice L2. Its main objective was to prepare learners to analyse written language and to be able to translate it (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Learning a language occurred by translating exercises and mastering grammar rules (Crystal, 1987:374). The second technique, the Reading Approach, was created for practical and academic purposes to develop students’ reading comprehension (Mora, 2014) where L1 was used again as a translation tool (Celce-Murcia, 2013:3) to learn the target language. As for the third technique, the Communicative Approach / Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), the students communicate using language functions that are presented in authentic materials. L1 is used, here, judiciously to encourage students to practice L2. Charles Curran developed Community Language Learning (CLL), the fourth technique, in 1995 focusing on mastering oral skills, using translation in its teaching process and L1 to make students feel comfortable. In this method, learners say things in their L1, which are then translated by the teacher-counsellor into L2 (Richards and Rodgers, 1986). The fifth technique, Total Physical Response (TPR), was designed to create and enjoyable environment as students are learning the target language, and it was developed by James Asher in the early 70s. Here, the mother tongue was used to introduce the course, rarely used after that, and meaning has to be conveyed through miming and gestures. The sixth and last technique, a method called Suggestopedia, was created by a Bulgarian psychiatrist named Georgi Lozanov. In this method, the use of L1 was to prevent students from being stressed and the dialogues that are read as part of the teaching instruction were later translated (Stevick, 1996). These six techniques seem to allow the use of L1 for very limited and specific purposes but more importantly some of them do take into account the students’ feelings, which may have a positive or negative effect on their learning process which is relevant to my research questions.
I will now present the four techniques that do not allow the use of the mother tongue. The first technique, the Direct Method, has its origins in Europe at the end of the
nineteenth century and it was used to promote oral fluency (Richards and Rodgers, 1986). Students had to learn to think in the target language, grammar was taught inductively and there had to be a direct association between meaning and L2. Communication was the objective of this method and students were exposed to conversations that took place in real situations (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). It prohibited L1 to increase L2 use and, more importantly, the mother tongue was not permitted even when explaining something in the students’ L1 would have been more effective (Richards and Rodgers, 1986). Gattegno developed the second technique, the Silent Way, in the early 70s and its objectives were to provide students with basic elements of the language, fluency, knowledge of the grammar and correct pronunciation of the target language (Richards and Rodgers, 1986). This method, does not allow the use of the mother tongue, however, the teacher can use it to give instructions, to give feedback and to make connections of existing sounds in L1 to the new ones in L2. The third technique, Audiolingualism or the Audio-Lingual Approach, has a theoretical base in linguistics and psychology. It is based on the repetition of drills from dialogues that are part of real-life situations and since it shares some characteristics of the Direct Method, the use of L1 is disapproved of; however, the teacher is allowed to make very little use of L1. Finally, regarding the fourth technique, Krashen and Terrell (1983:9, in Levine, 2003:433) state that the Natural Approach does not use the mother tongue and uses the target language in communicative situations instead. These four techniques do not allow the use of L1 because they want students to increase the use of the target language and because their objective was to increase oral skills and communication through the target language (See summary in the list of tables, Tables 1 and 2).
Regardless of the method or approach used to teach a language, I believe teachers who have monolingual classes just like me have the advantage over the ones who have multilingual groups mainly because being able to translate a word into the learners’
mother tongue can save time from the lesson and avoid learners’ frustration when trying to understand an explanation, no matter how short or long this could be (Cianflone (2009); Cook (2001); Schweers (1999); Tang (2002, in Chiou, 2014:70).
2.2 Previous research on the use of L1
The following part will address some research works that are against and in favour of the use of the mother tongue within the learning and teaching processes. An example of a researcher who is in favour is Schweers (1999:6), like other advocates of the use of L1, who states an increasing belief that the use of the mother tongue has a “necessary and facilitating role” in the second and foreign language classroom. Also, Littlewood and Yu (2011:45) support the use of the mother tongue either directly (e.g. as an element in a teaching technique or to explain a difficult point) or indirectly (e.g. to build positive relationships or help manage learning).
Additionally, Polio and Duff, (1994), and Cook, (2001, in Hall and Cook, 2012:8) propose some pedagogic arguments for own-language use which include:
- Efficient conveying of meaning: it is best to use L1 to explain difficult concepts than using L2 to do it because it may provoke confusion among students. - Maintenance of class discipline and organization: sometimes using the students’
mother tongue helps call students’ attention and keep the group controlled. - Teacher-learner rapport: if the students feel confident with their teacher, the
levels of anxiety and discomfort in the language classroom will be lowered, creating as a result a better learning atmosphere.
- Contact between the teacher and learners as real people: recognizing students’ individuality and cultural background.
Edstrom (2006, in Hall and Cook, 2012:9) claims teachers have a “moral obligation to use the learners’ own language judiciously in order to recognize learners as individuals to
communicate respect and concern and to create a positive affective environment for learning.” as Gardner (1993), Arnold (1999) and Rinvolucri’s (1999, in Arnold, 1999). The conclusions from a study conducted by Sharma (2006:86) agree with those in Tangs’ (2000) study which shows that judicious use of L1 “does not reduce students’ exposure to L2,” but overuse of L1 is counter-productive. In Sharma’s study (2006:85), the teachers and students provided different reasons to favour the use of the mother tongue: teachers say that the mother tongue helps students' comprehension greatly, that it is more effective and that it is less time consuming to teach using L1 and the students say that the use of mother tongue establishes good relation between the teacher and the students. At the same time, these students mentioned that L1 should be used to help define some new vocabulary items, to explain complex grammar points. Similarly, Aulbuch (1998:81, in Ustünel and Seedhouse, 2oo5) not only acknowledges the positive role of the mother tongue in the classroom, but also identifies the following uses for it: “classroom management, language analysis, presenting rules that govern grammar, discussing cross-cultural issues, giving instructions or prompts, explaining errors and checking for comprehension.”
In some teaching contexts where Spanish is the students’ mother tongue, the use of Spanish is believed to be detrimental because teachers and students feel that class time is one of the few opportunities for students to practice the target language. In this regard, Huerta-Macias and Kephart’s conclusions (2009:95) are very relevant to my study because I share their beliefs. I agree that the use of L1 is determined by the context in which it occurs in the language class. For example, if students are having problems understanding metalanguage or abstract terms and the main objective is to guarantee comprehension, then the use of the mother tongue is best. Similarly, Flores (1993, in Chiou, 2014:70) states that learners need to understand the input in order to “build up academic concepts.” Of course, this quote makes sense if you teach monolingual groups, otherwise, teachers would have to know more languages than the target
language besides the students’ mother tongue.
Hudelson and Faltis (1994, in Huerta-Macias and Kephart, 2009: 88) believe the use of the native language (mother tongue) gives students the opportunity to participate in English language discussions with more confidence and understanding. A justification for L1 use in ESL classrooms is that teachers take into consideration the learning of content as well as the affective-psychological benefits. They also point out students may have a more positive reaction towards the target language if they feel their mother tongue is being accepted and valued (Hudelson and Faltis, 1994, in Huerta-Macias and Kephart, 2009:464). Additionally, Anton and DiCamilla (1998:18, in Huerta-Macias and Kephart, 2009:90) also agree that the use of the L1 in collaborative interaction emerges not merely as a device to generate content and to reflect on the material produced but, more importantly, as a means to create a social and cognitive space in which learners are able to provide each other and themselves with help throughout the task.
However, not all authors think that the use of the mother tongue in the language classroom is positive. For example, authors like Atkinson (1987:246 in Man, 2013) suggests three problems that may be the result of the overuse of L1 in the L2 classroom: first, students will be expecting a translation most of the time; second, being conscious of the differences and similarities between L1 and L2 may cause inaccurate translations and, third, they forget that the main objective in the language classroom is to learn and practice the target language. Turnbull (2001, in Chiou, 2014:55) agrees that the experts who propose English-only in the language classroom highlight the exposure to L2 as an advantage.
With regard to the importance of L1 in some teaching methods and approaches, Al Sharaeai (2012:3) suggests that the mother tongue was not used under any circumstances when students were taught using the Direct Method. Al Sharaeai also
mentions that methods like Audiolingualism, the Silent Way, and Communicative Language Teaching did not promote the use of the mother tongue as a teaching technique. Similarly, Hall and Cook (2013:7) claim that according to teachers’ discussion, debate and research within ELT, it has been presupposed that English is best taught and learned in the absence of the learners’ first language, encouraging to “monolingual or English-only” classes. Additionally, other methods and approaches such as Communicative Language Teaching, Task-based Learning and Teaching and Content and Language Integrated Learning supported monolingual approaches as well as having multilingual students in their classes, hiring English native speakers who may not be able to speak their students’ mother tongue, having textbooks in their courses that may only be handled by expert teachers (Hall and Cook, 2012:8). Finally, theorists and methodologists like Howatt and Widdowson (2004), Cook (2010), Littlewood and Yu (2011) and Hall and Cook (all cited in Hall and Cook, 2012) make reference to the prohibition of the use of the mother tongue. They claim that “a new language should be taught and learned monolingually, without reference to or use of the learner’s own language in the classroom” (Hall and Cook, 2012:8). Also, Norman (2008, in Carson and Kashihara, 2012:43) mentions that the disadvantages of using L1 in a study he carried out were that students did not want to use L2 because of laziness.
Al Sharaeai’s study is very similar to mine because it talks about the use of L1 made by the teacher and the students. It also analyses teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards the use of L1 and it addresses anxiety as a debilitating factor in the learning process. However, the study concludes that the use of L1 is affected by a number of variables and that if students are aware of that the use of L1 hinders the learning process they will be able to stop using it. I must clarify that the purpose of this research project is neither for students nor for teachers to stop using L1, but to use it judiciously as a result of providing students with the necessary tools to practice L2 as much as possible in the language classroom. By doing so, the use of L1 should eventually vanish as students reach higher levels of proficiency.
2.3 Aspects that can hinder or promote the learning process
This section will discuss some aspects that hinder or facilitate the learning process. First, we will talk about anxiety as an obstacle and then, we will talk about motivation as the fuel that contributes the learning process. Next, we will talk about how some grammatical differences between L1 and the target language (TL) make learning a complex process, and at the same time we will see how comparative grammar might help solving this complexity by making use of students’ schemata. Finally, we will discuss how untrained teachers in Mexico are also responsible for turning language learning into a negative experience.
2.3.1 Anxiety
“We have a mind. We have feelings. To separate the two is to deny all that we are. To integrate the two is to help us realize what we might be” George Brown (1975:108, in Moskowitz, 1978:1)
My study relates to Hall and Cook’s (2013) in the sense that both explore students and teachers’ attitudes and how they dictate the use of L1 in the language classroom. In this regard, Harbord (1992); Rolin-lanziti and Varshney (2008); Brooks-Lewis (2009); Littlewood and Yu (2011) (in Hall and Cook, 2013) state that “a number of studies have uncovered positive attitudes, particularly as a way of reducing learner’s anxiety and creating a humanistic classroom.” I share these authors’ opinions because I am the type of teacher that is interested in students’ feelings, emotions and attitudes and; therefore, I try to make them feel at ease in class by creating a relaxed and friendly environment. I also found their study very relevant to mine because the objectives and the types of questions they used to gather data are similar as well. Also, as Horwitz et al (1986:132) claim that “Foreign Language Anxiety can probably be alleviated, at least to an extent,
by a supportive teacher who will acknowledge students’ feelings of isolation and helplessness and offer concrete suggestions for attaining foreign language confidence.” I believe that this particular type of anxiety can be treated and reduced. The affect or emotional self is a strong factor in learning, thus the connection to emotions in ESL learning (Huerta-Macias and Kephart, 2009:88).
Ellis (1987:693) found that anxiety affects L2 acquisition and that it may have positive or negative effects. This author states that the positive effects facilitate learning and the negative effects debilitate it. So far as this is concerned, Moskowitz (1978:1) mentions the importance of reconsidering humanizing the teaching practice in the foreign classroom, transforming the cold methods into relaxing and enjoyable experiences that produce better outcomes in the learning process. According to this researcher, part of the transformation comes from including students’ feelings, either positive or negative and how these affect the learning process.
Additionally, Tallon (2009, in Wu, 2010:175) McIntyre and Charos (1996), McIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels (1998) state that factors such as cognitive abilities, personality characteristics, learning styles, meta-cognitive differences, social contexts and affective aspects dictate the accomplishments of the learning process, which include individual differences. It is important to mention that some of these factors are uncontrollable as much as student’s age, gender and personality. Fortunately, student’s intelligence, personality, attitude, motivation and anxiety can be modified in the language classroom depending on the methods and strategies used by teachers and institutions policies. For instance, as a result of my teaching experience I have met students who have struggled to learn English for years and yet have not been able to succeed. Sometimes they say they have a mental block (Horwitz et al, 1986: 125). These students have described this mental block as feeling anxious and not being able to understand neither the words the teachers say nor the activities they are asked to do in the language classroom. Horwitz, and Howirtz and Cope (1986:1) argue that learning a foreign language is a problem many
people claim to have. These authors say that this problem of not being able to cope with learning an L2 is because of anxiety; therefore, they define this emotional state as “the subjective feeling of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with the arousal of the automatic nervous system.”
Tallon (2009, in Wu, 2010: 175) states that Foreign Language Anxiety (FLA) is one of the most significant affective variables in learning a foreign language. Similarly, according to Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986:128, in Tran et al, 2012), FLA is an exceptional type of anxiety particular to foreign language learning and he says it is related to self-perceptions, feelings and behaviours that take place in the classroom language learning process. Gregersen (2003), Krashen (1985), McIntyre and Gardner (1991) and Price (1991) carried out studies whose conclusions showed that negative effects on learning experiences are usually the result of high levels of anxiety and these have a repercussion on the language acquisition process (Wu, 2010:174). Similarly, Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986); McIntyre (1995); and Scovel (1991, in Levine, 2003:346) agree that the anxiety caused by the target language use is considered debilitating.
In a study conducted by Levine (2003:343), he makes enquires between the relationships of the target language use and student anxiety about TL use, and he concludes that the amounts of TL use would vary depending on the group of participants and the contexts where communication is taking place. Language learning anxiety (e.g., Bailey et al, 2000; Horwitz et al., 1986; McIntyre, 1995; McIntyre & Charos, 1996; Young, 1990) addresses many social and personality variables, but learner anxiety regarding TL use (whether the TL is used by the instructor or the student) is seldom taken into consideration (Levine, 2003:346). Young (1990) found that students tend to get anxious when they have to use the target language when interacting with other people. Likewise, Horwitz et al. (1986) think there is a relationship between FLA and reluctance to have oral interactions.
Krashen (2002) developed a theory called The Affective Filter Hypothesis, which is made up of students’ motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. He believes students’ emotions and attitudes can impede the acquisition of the target language. Consequently, if the teacher is able to lower the students’ negative emotions and increase their motivation, students will be able to acquire the language easier. He also supports the use of L1 to lower the affective filter. (Richards and Rodgers, 1986:133). Similarly, Auerbach (1993:7) argues that using L1 “reduces affective barriers to English acquisition and allows for more rapid progress to or in ESL.” The use of L1 reduces anxiety and enhances the affective environment for learning (Piasecka, 1986:97, in Auerbach, 1993:8). Karimian and Reza (2013:608) also agree in the conclusions of their study that the mother tongue is useful to lower students’ anxiety sine it gives them security and motivates them; however, students might feel demotivated if their L1 is ignored in the language classroom (Karimian and Reza, 2013:606). Additionally, Littlewood and Yu, (2009:72) acknowledge L1 as an important source of security and support whereas Schweers (1999:13) claims that the use of the mother tongue helps learning English feel less threatening. On the other hand, Kim’s (2008:67, in Littlewood and Yu, 2011:74) survey, conducted after five years of Teaching English Through English (TETE), showed that the more English students use, the more they get used to the activities in the classroom and familiarize with the language; as a result, the levels of anxiety will go down allowing better learning.
When talking about culture through jokes and riddles, teachers and students use L1 (Sharma, 2006:86). Also, when dealing with social skills, Auerbach (1993) and Brooks-Lewis (2009) (in Hall and Cook, 2012:9) approve of the use of the mother tongue to establish rapport among teachers and students. Cajkler and Addelman (1992:5) define this type of rapport as intra and inter-class relationships. Some studies have shown that teacher–student interpersonal relationships have effects on both teachers and students and such effects may be positive or negative. Besides, teachers experiencing healthy interpersonal relationships with their students are argued to experience better
satisfaction with their job and with preventing of burnout (Ben-Chaim and Zoller, 2011, in Maulanaa et al, 2011).
Our objective as teachers should be helping students identify what triggers the negative effect and redirect it into motivation, which is described by Ellis (1987:715) as “the effort, which learners put into learning an L2 as a result of their need or desire to learn.” Dörnyei and Kormos (1998) find that L2 learners use L1 as a communication strategy to compensate for deficiencies in the target language.
The mother tongue seems to serve a number of functions such as an opportunity for pupils to clarify the meaning of what the teacher has said, a discussion of the requirements of a task and how it might be tackled; and a social function, in terms of creating a sense of group cohesion, or reducing student anxiety. Atkinson (1993) characterized certain functions of the L1 as being necessary. According to him, the necessary roles for L1 use are: lead-ins (exploit the L1 to check that the students have understood the situation, eliciting language - getting language from the students), giving instructions (especially useful to clarify the written instruction on a worksheet or in a book), checking comprehension (whether or not students understand a word or phrase) Sharma, (2006).
2.3.2 Grammatical differences dealt with contrastive analysis
The results of a study carried by Schweers (1999:13) prove that using similarities and differences between L1 and L2 is a good strategy to learn the target language. Huerta-Macias and Kephart (2009:93) reported that one of the teachers observed in their study used comparative grammar to help students understand the formation of the future tense in English. In a study carried out by Sharma (2006:85) he explains that students think that L1 should be used to explain complex grammar rules. Mukattash (2003:224, in Jadallah and Hasan, undated) holds the idea of the use of translation where disparities
between L1 and L2 are markedly difficult. Similarly, Vaezi and Mirzaei’s (2007:13) conclusion of their study states that by “using specific structures, learners can enhance linguistic accuracy within the scope of those structures.” This demonstrates that using comparisons between L1 and L2 helps students learn the language.
Nunan (1999, in Vaezi and Mirzaei, 2007) argues that “In some cases it is inevitable that language learners use their dominant languages (L1) as a resource…They need to be able to relate lexis and structures of target language into their equivalents in their mother tongue.” Unfortunately, if the students’ L1 lexis and structures are not solid enough using contrastive grammar will not help much.
2.3.3 Untrained teachers
Sayer (2015:10) in response to an article written by O’Donoghue and Calderón Martín del Campo (2015) proposes that the Programa Nacional de Inglés en Educación Básica (PNIEB, or NEPBE in English) should create specialist degree programs to prepare teachers who can teach at basic levels. This could give strong bases to the process of learning English.
In the study carried by Al Sharaeai (2007:24) it is reported that sometimes teachers used L1 in situations that were considered simple. Andrea Koucka (2007, in Al Sharaeai, 2007:24) argues overuse of L1 by trainee teachers. I ask myself if this could be the result of lack of training from the teachers, either their own or their classes.
Carson and Kashihara (2012: 47) claim in the results of their study “Ideally, instructors highly proficient in L1 (Japanese) should instruct lower-level students while instructors highly proficient in L2 (English) should instruct the higher-level students.” This reflection coincides with my idea that teachers have to be well trained not only for higher levels,
but for lower levels too. It is discriminatory that the well-prepared teachers do not teach in the lower levels.
2.4 Proposals / suggestions to increase L2
I will now include relevant proposals, activities or suggestions made by the authors who are in favour of increasing L2 activities instead of prohibiting the use of the native language. Guvercin (2010) mentions some ideas that might help to keep L1 in a globalized world where people are gradually losing their language and culture. However, I consider these ideas can also be used to increase L2 in the language classroom. The first one is “finding ways to motivate and encourage L2 learning.” From my own experience, giving students a needs analysis during the first days of classes will provide rich data such as what motivates students to learn the language. One can take action from there and design different plans to increase the opportunities to practice it and to expose learners to the language. Obtaining a good job position, being able to communicate when they go on holidays, understanding movies and TV programs are some of the rewards learners can reach by learning an L2. The second one is writing and reading in the L2 daily if possible. What I usually suggest to my students is that they write short paragraphs (50-80 words) and have a tutor at the university’s language laboratory look at it and give them feedback about it. If there are no tutors who can help students they can always ask their teachers for help or encourage students to do peer correction. Learners at the university where the present study was carried out are asked to visit the language laboratory and perform activities that range from working on grammar to watching television programs or series they are interested in. Other suggestions in this article that are relevant for this study are being exposed to the L1 (in this case L2) as much as possible and listen to music in the L2.
Rolin-latinzi and Varshney (2008, in Hall and Cook, 2012:8), describe two types of pedagogic functions in which L1 can be used. These are “teaching the new language:
explaining vocabulary items or teaching grammar,” as the medium-oriented goals, and “framing, organizing and managing classroom events: giving instructions or setting homework” as the framework goals. Kim and Elder (2008, in Hall and Cook, 2012:9) identify a similar distinction, additionally suggesting that the learner’s own language is often used for the social role of expressing personal concern and sympathy. In a study conducted by Sampson (2012), he agrees that learners use their L1 as a means of socializing which helps them develop a sense of group solidarity. I consider this interaction valid especially in the lower levels, where in my opinion, it is more important to work on building a teaching environment where students feel comfortable and you need to gain their trust. Of course, this type of practice should diminish as students are moving to higher levels or make them to a minimum (Chiou, 2014:53). Unfortunately, this interaction may not be suitable when you have a multilingual group but a bilingual one.
Huerta-Macias and Kephart (2009:93), support the employment of L1 in the language classroom at the beginning and at the end of a lesson “to create a welcoming environment and acknowledge the linguistic identity the students bring into the classroom.” Teacher then can code switch to show in a “natural transition” the class will begin.
Mitchell (1988: 148, in Littlewood and Yu, 2011: 74) observed that teachers who want to stick to the use of L2 in the classroom use strategies such as: “repetition, substituting an item with similar meaning, explaining in simpler terms, contrasting with items from a similar lexical set, exemplification.” Tarone and Yule 1989:109–113, in Littlewood and Yu, 2011: 74) suggest other strategies like: “paraphrase, gestures, pictures and giving clues.” In the teachers’ answers Schweers (1999:9) gathered in his study, they mentioned that it is best to use the mother tongue for students to understand a concept instead of giving an explanation in L2. In the same study, teachers mentioned they use L1 to establish
rapport, which is in my personal opinion, something very important to make students feel comfortable.
CHAPTER 3
3. RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY
The aim of this chapter is to describe and provide a rationale underlying the research process in this study. This research attempted to use a mixed-method (Dörnyei: 2007;
Borg, 2009, in Hall and Cook, 2013) that combined qualitative and quantitative approaches. I will state the research questions and the objective of the study. Then, I will explain the methodology applied for this research and the validation for the questionnaire. After that, I will explain how the process was carried out. Finally, I will explain how data was analysed.
3.1 Action Research
In the words of Wallace (1998:4) and Burton and Barlett, (2005:17) Action Research is a way of reflecting on our teaching through the collection of data aimed to make decisions of what should be improved in our teaching. Once the study is finished, action should take place again making adjustments, as this is a cyclical process (O’Brien, R. 1998). (See figure 1) Action Research is a strategy teachers can use to improve their teaching. It does not necessarily have to be a problem what pushes the teacher to start an investigation, but a desire to find out what is going on in their language classroom. Usually teachers are worried about problems concerning their teaching techniques, trying to reach their students’ needs or finding areas of improvement. Action Research not only gives teachers the opportunity to reflect on those aspects, but also start over and over until they reach their objectives
Figure 1: The cycle of Action Research and reflection (Altrichter et al, 2008:8)
As it is described in figure 1, Action Research starts with an inquiry that needs to have a solution; it is problem-focused (Wallace, 1998:15). The teacher becomes a researcher and starts the investigation collecting the data, which will later be analysed. After this, the teacher takes action implementing the solutions or recommendations the study generates. Then, the teacher analyses again, and may or may not start collecting data and repeating the cycle. Action Research is based on reflection. “The aim, however, is not to turn the teacher into a researcher, but to help him or her to continue to develop as a teacher, using action research as a tool in this process” (Wallace, 1998:18). Cohen et al (2000:243) claim “Hopkins (1985:32) and Ebbutt (1985:156) suggest that the combination of action and research renders that action a form of disciplined inquiry, in which a personal attempt is made to understand, improve and reform practice.” I found two more definitions of action research in Cohen et al (2000:243) that in my opinion are more complete. These are
Corey (1953:6) who argues that it is a process in which practitioners study problems scientifically (our italics) so that they can evaluate, improve and steer decision making and practice. Indeed Kemmis and McTaggart (1992:10) argue that ‘to do action research is to plan, act, observe and reflect more carefully, more systematically, and more rigorously than one usually does in everyday life’.
I decided to carry out an action research project in order to find the answers to the research questions I stated previously and that I will state again in 3.3. I also wanted to carry out this project to fulfil a professional desire to improve what seems to be a problem in my daily teaching: the use of students’ L1 in the language classroom. Finally, Neville (2007:1) defines research as “… a process of enquiry and investigation; it is systematic, methodical and ethical; research can help solve practical problems and increase knowledge.”
3.2 Participants
In order to conduct the research, I needed to select a sample (Dörnyei, 2007:128). One of the main reasons I decided to carry out this study and have the use of L1 as a topic is because I wanted to improve professionally. Therefore, I asked my own students to participate in it and I also asked another teacher to allow me invite her students. Dawson (2000:47) claims it is easier to overcome the problem of sampling by selecting a small or manageable number of participants (which is what I did) and at the same time, she prevents us from generalizing the results because our sample cannot represent the whole.
The participants in this study were 38 pre-intermediate level EFL students. Their ages ranged from 17 to 22.
They all speak Spanish as their first language.
3.3 Research Questions
Under what circumstances do students consider the use of their mother tongue a benefit for their learning process?
Do affective factors influence the learning process?
Can the use of students’ mother tongue help diminish anxiety?
3.4 Reasons for questionnaire
First of all, Dörnyei (2000:102) suggests people have named questionnaire wrongly. He states, “The term is partly a misnomer because many questionnaires do not contain any real questions that end with a question mark.” Therefore, I have to admit my questionnaire is not really a questionnaire, because it contains questions that are more like statements, rather than questions.
The rationale to use a questionnaire as a means for collecting the data is because I consider the research topic to be a delicate one. I have that feeling about the use of L1 in the language classrooms because some teachers and students have been told that using their mother tongue in class is counter-productive (I believe it is not always true). Phrases like “You have to learn to think in English not translating into your native language” were common when I was a language student. I was even reprimanded for using Spanish in my English classes. I never had a teacher who said I could use L1 in x or y situation. Therefore, if using your mother tongue in your language class is a bad thing to do, nobody would like to express openly they do use it or they think it is appropriate to do it in specific circumstances. Through a questionnaire you can obtain anonymous answers and respondents may feel more comfortable not being judged. (Cohen et al, 2005:6; Burton and Barlett, 2005:30). Therefore, an anonymous questionnaire would be appropriate for my action research. Besides this, the questionnaire designed for this study (see Appendix 1) is user-friendly in terms of length (answering the questionnaire would take five to ten minutes) and sensitive to the level of proficiency of the students because it was written in their mother tongue (Spanish) (Wallace, 1998:138). Finally, Dörnyei (2007:121) mentions the simplicity of accessing to specialized populations is a benefit on collecting data via the Internet.
3.4.1 Validation of questionnaire
The questionnaire used in this study measures two types of data about the respondents: it contains attitudinal and behavioural questions. “Attitudinal questions will give us answers about students’ values, attitudes, beliefs, interests and opinions. Behavioural questions will focus on actions, life-styles, habits and personal history.” (Dörnyei, 2007:102).
In the questionnaire designed for this study I am addressing students’ opinion in question number two:
It is useful that the teacher uses Spanish when: explaining new words, new grammar, difficult concepts or ideas, the differences between L1 and L2 grammar (Al Sharaeai, 2012:11); (Huerta-Macias and Kephart, 2009:93; Sharma, 2006; and Mukattash, 2003:224, in Jadallah and Hasan, (undated). And at the same time this question gives me the answer to one of my research questions: Under what circumstances do students consider the use of their mother tongue a benefit for their learning process? (Horwitz et al, 1986:1; Horwitz, and Cope, 1986; McIntyre, 1995; and Scovel, 1991, in Levine, 2003:346).
The following questions helped me gather data for my other research questions, which are: Do affective factors influence the learning process? Can the use of students’ mother tongue help diminish anxiety?
5: In my opinion having to speak English only in class makes me feel nervous 2: It is useful that the teacher uses Spanish when making the students feel relaxed 6: If there were an “Only English” policy in my English class, it would make me
feel…because…
8: The fact that my English teacher is a foreigner makes me feel…because… 9: The fact that my English teacher is a foreigner and do not speak Spanish makes
me feel…because…and
10: The fact that my English teacher knows and speaks fluently my mother tongue makes me feel…because…
Finally questions one, three, four and seven refer to the use of L1 by the teacher and the students. They describe when and why it is acceptable for students and the teacher to
use the mother tongue, which answers one of the research questions: Under what circumstances do students consider the use of their mother tongue a benefit for their learning process?
Regarding validity, the questionnaire addresses the three research questions I proposed. However, in correspondence to reliability and validity of the answers it depends greatly on superficial answers from unmotivated participants (Dörnyei, 2003, in Hall and Cook, 2013).
3.5 Data gathering and analysis rationale
The questionnaire I designed (see Appendix 1) was online and it I used SurveyMonkey to collect the data. The original questionnaire was written in Spanish (see Appendix 2) for students to be able to understand and answer the questions in an easier and thoughtful way. I was able to see the students’ answers and the statistics SurveyMonkey provided as soon as they have finished answering the questionnaire.
3.6 Student questionnaire
As I mentioned before, I decided to use a questionnaire because I think it is a very rapid way to gather and analyse the data and it is not as threatening as interviews. Nevertheless, I needed to take some aspects in mind: clarity, simplicity, and the most suitable type of questions along with the relevance of the questions, and making it short. Ambiguity of instructions, terms and questions is something that has to be avoided when writing the questionnaire in order to enable validity to the research (Cohen, Manion and Morris, 2005:116).
One of the reasons I decided to have an online questionnaire was because it was easier for students to answer it at the moment I asked them to do it. They could use whatever electronic device they had at hand and also, this kept students’ identity anonymous since
I was not going to be able to recognize their penmanship. I designed an online questionnaire using Survey Monkey. SurveyMonkey is an “online survey development cloud-based (software as service) company that provides free, customizable surveys, that include data analysis, sample selection, bias elimination, and data representation tools” (Wikipedia, 2016). I used a Likert scale, which is in words of Bell (1993:139)
The most straightforward attitude scale…it asks respondents to indicate strength of agreement or disagreement with a given statement or series of statements on a five or seven point range. Answers are then scored, generally from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and a measure of respondents’ feelings can be produced.
Dörnyei (2007:103) defines the Likert scales as a “cluster of several differently worded items that focus on the same target.” I consider Likert scales to be one of the easiest instruments to measure the type of questions I presented in this study. It gives students an opportunity to decide amongst five different options.
I decided I would use quantitative and qualitative methods to collect the data in my study. On the one hand, I included ten questions, five of which use the Likert scale and five that are open-ended questions. In spite of the fact that Likert scales design may make the answers difficult to interpret, Cohen, Manion and Morris, (2005:253) claim, “the greater subtlety of response which is built into a rating scale renders this a very attractive and widely used instrument in research.”
The scales used for some questions are:
1. Totally agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Totally disagree. and
1. Always 2. Usually 3. Sometimes 4. Never
questions. They will be analysed using a qualitative method in case students provided an answer in the section under the name of “other.” The other five questions were open and were also provided with an option to add comments, which will be analysed using a quantitative method.
On the other hand, open-ended questions as Wallace (1998:259) argues are “types of questions to which the range of possible answers has not been specified in advance.” Additionally, open questions generate richer and more interesting data. However, the answers these types of questions provide are usually more difficult and time consuming to analyse (Wallace, 1998:135). Open questions, give respondents the opportunity to provide “a free response in their own terms, to explain and qualify their responses and avoid the limitations of pre-set categories of response” (Cohen et al, 2005:248).
Finally, it is important to mention that I included the informed consent within the questionnaire. It is placed on top of the page and students had to click to agree or disagree in participating in the research. They were also told they could withdraw from the study at any moment if they decided to do so.
As soon as the questionnaire was ready, I piloted it. Piloting the questionnaire is very important because it prevents respondents for getting confused either by the instructions or the questions, and the researcher from making mistakes once the questionnaire has been answered (Wallace, 1998:132; Punch 1998:100, in Burton and Barlett, 2005:29). I asked some colleagues to answer it and give me their insights. Some of the questions were unclear; therefore, they needed revision and rewriting. Also, some technical problems were fixed in the online questionnaire before it was actually administered to the students (Sproull, 2002:349).
3.7 Data Analysis
It was very interesting, but not surprising, to see the amount and richness of answers that were obtained from the open-ended questions. In the next chapter, I will present the data that was obtained from the questionnaires that 38 students answered.
CHAPTER 4
4. RESEARCH FINDINGS
In this chapter I will report the findings from the analysis of the questionnaire 38 students answered on their opinions of the use of their mother tongue in their language classroom (see Appendix 1). I will present the data obtained from the research questions used in this study in the following order. The first research question is: Under what circumstances do students consider the use of their mother tongue a benefit for their learning process? The second question is: Do affective factors influence the learning
process? And the third research question is: Can the use of students’ mother tongue help diminish anxiety?
It is important to emphasize the fact that, although 38 students participated in the study, some of them did not take part in all the questions, having as a result 31 answers instead of 38. Besides this, one of the participants did not provide real answers but typed a single letter in each of the questions resulting in 30 useful answers in the end. This type of answer was classified as null and it was not included in the statistics. Quotes from the participants’ answers will be provided to exemplify their answers and opinions.
4.1 Research Question 1: Under what circumstances do students consider the use of their mother tongue a benefit for their learning process?
a. Teacher’s use of L1 in the classroom
According to question 2 in the questionnaire, most of the students think L1 is useful when the teacher explains difficult concepts or ideas as well as when explaining differences between L1 and L2 (see Appendix 3).
The majority of students totally agree (42.11%), agree (36.84%), disagree (18.42) or totally disagree (2.63%) L1 is beneficial when the teacher explains difficult concepts or ideas; likewise, the majority of the students totally agree (39.47%), agree (36.84), disagree (21.05%), or totally disagree (2.63%) L1 is beneficial when explaining differences between L1 and L2. Further research, interviewing students or giving them another questionnaire to find out if those may be the reasons. On the other hand, most of the students (63.16% disagree and 21.05% totally disagree) agreed that L1 is not beneficial when giving instructions and using it for students to relax, while 5.26% totally agree and 21.05% agree. The majority of the students also declared that they totally agree (42.11%), agree
(28.95%), disagree (28.95) or totally disagree (0%) L1 is beneficial when the teacher explains new words.
In terms of explaining grammar, most of the students disagree (50%) and totally disagree (5.26%), whereas 23.68% totally agree and 21.05% agree that the use of L1 is not beneficial for their learning process when explaining grammar. Finally, in the comments section, one student provided a commentary: It is ok to use Spanish, but we also need to use English so the students get used to it when they apply it in different situations.
b. Students’ use of L1 in the language classroom
With reference to question 3(see Appendix 4) “In your opinion, students should be allowed to use L1 when…” more than half of the students (60.53%) reported they disagree in using L1 when they talk in pairs or in groups, on the other hand, 28.95% agree, 5.26% totally agree and 5.26 totally disagree. A similar number of students (14) totally agree and (14) agree they should be allowed to use L1 when asking for the equivalent of words in English, while 9 students disagree and 1 totally disagrees. Besides this, the majority of students agree (39.47%) they should be allowed to use L1 for translating a sentence or a text from L2 to L1 to show they understand it, 26.32% totally agree, 31.58% disagree and 2.63 totally disagree. A large number of students (44.74%) suggested that when they need to check the meaning of words said in English, L1 should be allowed, 34.21% totally agree, 18.42% disagree and 2.63% totally disagree. In the comments section, one student said: It is ok to use both languages, it helps you verify the differences amongst them.
Analysing the results of question 4 (see Appendix 5) in terms of under the circumstances students deliberately use L1 in their English class, the higher percentages were reported for the following reasons:
to chat with their classmates about topics that may not be connected to the class: usually (35.14%)
to ask a classmate to explain a point in the lesson for them: usually (42.11%) to check the meaning of a word or concept during the lesson: usually (39.47%) because they cannot think of the correct word in English when they are talking to
their classmates: sometimes (42.11%)
because their classmates start talking to them in Spanish while they are working on a task: usually (44.74%)
because they want to finish faster: sometimes and never (31.50% each) because they feel more connected with their culture: never (44.74%)
The complete analysis for question 4 (see Appendix 5) is: a large group of students (44.74%) usually use L1 in their English class because their classmates start talking to them in Spanish while they are working on a task, whereas 26.32 totally agree, 23.68% disagree or 5.26% totally disagree. Students usually (42.11%), sometimes and never (21.05% each) or always (15.79%) use L1 in their English class because they need to ask a classmate to explain a point in the lesson for them. Students expressed they use L1 in their class sometimes (52.63%), usually (23.69%), always (18.42%) or never (5.26%) to explain a new point in the lesson to a classmate. Also, statistics about the use of L1 to check the meaning of a word or concept during the lesson reported: always (23.68%), usually (39.47%), sometimes (31.58%) or never (5.26%). The students reported they speak Spanish in their English class: sometimes (52.63%), usually (23.68%), always (18.42%) or never (5.26%). They also said they speak Spanish in their English class because they want to chat with their classmates about topics that may not be connected to the class: usually (35.14%) sometimes (24.32%), never (21.62%) or always (18.92%). Another reason for students to use L1 is because their classmates start talking to them in Spanish while they are working on a task, they reported: always (26.32%), usually (44.74%), sometimes (23.68%) or never (5.26%). Finally, students said they never (44.74%) use L1 in their English class because they feel more connected with their culture. In the comments section, one
student made a commentary: Personally, I don’t like English perhaps that’s why I cannot learn it adequately. I learn it because it is necessary to graduate and because many documents from my career are in this language.
With reference to question 1 (see Appendix 6), students expressed it seems very important for them that their English teacher should know (be proficient) their L1 (totally agree: 94.59% and 40.54% agree) whereas 2 students disagree (5.41%). Regarding the statement: The teacher must use the students’ L1, 47.37% of the students disagree, 31.58% agree, 15.79 totally agree and 5.26% totally disagree. The teacher may use the students’ L1, agree (35.14%), totally agree (29.73%), disagree (29.73%) and totally disagree (5.41%). The students’ comments are:
It depends on the level.
Knowing at least a little about the students’ L1, otherwise the teacher would not know how to contextualize concepts to understand the idea better.
It is important for me that students do not use their mother tongue unless it is necessary, because they have no other way to express themselves.
It does not matter if the teacher speaks the students’ mother tongue or not, but preferably he does.
It is ok if the student uses his mother tongue in his English class, but only to clarify questions otherwise I think the target language will not be understood if he does not understand his mother tongue.
Taking about what students think of them using L1 in their English class they said: Students should use their L1 totally agree (5.41%), agree (32.43%), disagree (51.35%) or totally disagree (10.81%); and also it is ok if students use their L1: totally agree (10.53%), agree (39.47%), disagree (42.11%) and totally disagree (7.89%).
In your opinion, it is ok that the teacher uses L1, 11 students totally agreed and 13 students agreed.
